On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:57:35PM +0800, Libin wrote:
> 1)Problem Description:
> The prototype of invalid wakeup problem is as follows:
>
>
> Consumer Thread
>
> ...
>
Hi all,
I'm so sorry, please ignore this patch set!
I have realized that there is no this problem in our kernel.
Preempt_schedule() has set PREEMPT_ACTIVE before calling
__schedule() and __schedule will check it if current state is not
TASK_RUNNING, avoiding this preemption.
Libin
On 2013/8/29 21
Hello, again.
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 10:08:13PM +0800, Libin wrote:
...
> static void simulate_preempted(void)
> {
> schedule();
> }
Gees... of course, your test code will stall. Preemption !=
schedule(). Please take a look at PREEMPT_ACTIVE handling in
__schedule().
Thanks.
--
tejun
On 2013/8/29 21:57, Libin wrote:
> 2)Test:
> I have written a test module to trigger the problem by adding some
> synchronization condition. I will post it in the form of an attachment soon.
>
> Test result as follows:
> [103135.332683] wakeup_test: create two kernel threads - producer & cons
Hello, Libin.
I'm completely confused by this series
On Thu, Aug 29, 2013 at 09:57:35PM +0800, Libin wrote:
> 1)Problem Description:
> The prototype of invalid wakeup problem is as follows:
>
> --
1)Problem Description:
The prototype of invalid wakeup problem is as follows:
Consumer Thread
...
if (list_empty(&list)){
//location a
set_current_stat
6 matches
Mail list logo
